Video není dostupné.
Omlouváme se.
What Was The REAL Impact Of The P-51 Mustang On The Luftwaffe? | My JG 26 Case Study
Vložit
- čas přidán 18. 03. 2023
- War Thunder is a highly detailed vehicle combat game containing over 2000 playable tanks, aircraft, and ships spanning over 100 years of development. Immerse yourself completely in dynamic battles with an unparalleled combination of realism and approachability.
Play War Thunder Now: playwt.link/calibanrising
Video Information:
Have you ever stopped to question the true impact of the P-51 Mustang on the defeat of Germany in WW2? I have.
I'm starting to double-check a lot of the things I've blindly believed for years, starting with the P-51. I want to know if it really had that big of an impact on grounding the Luftwaffe and if it was the only long-range fighter capable of doing the job.
Join me in this video for lots of stats and a nice little JG 26 case study to see if all we've ever heard about the P-51 Mustang is really true.
Also, check out the great video Greg did on the Thunderbolt's range: • P-47 Thunderbolt Pt. 6...
💗 If you'd like to support my channel please follow this link for more details: calibanrising.com/support/
You can also now find me on Patreon: / calibanrising
🧥 Want to get a great deal on an authentic leather flying jacket? Check out the range from Legendary USA here: calibanrising.com/flying-jacket/
🎁 Grab one of my unique WW2-themed designs. great on t-shirts, hoodies or mugs: bit.ly/3GLPNBJ
📰 You can also support me by subscribing to one of these great aviation magazines: calibanrising.com/magazines/
💰 Want to start an online business with CZcams?
This CZcams channel is no accident and the success I've had so far was no mere fluke, it's all been planned out and executed in a very meaningful way. However, I can't take credit for knowing how to do all that, I had to learn and I learned from the best!
Listen to my advice for building a successful CZcams channel: • How Does Phil From Cal...
📕 Welcome to my channel where I share my love of history and aviation. I first fell in love with military aviation when reading Biggles books as a boy, then I studied history at university. I like finding interesting stories and sharing them with others.
I also followed this passion into the real world and managed to get a Private Pilot's Licence on 10th May 2014.
🕹️ My gaming equipment for getting footage:
Joystick: amzn.to/2TP6h40
Rudder Pedals: amzn.to/38c3YAx
Elevator Trim: amzn.to/3oQWNn8
Head Tracking: amzn.to/34Qpvwd
3D print your own gaming controls
Get an Enders 3 Pro like me: amzn.to/3dFXts3
Go over to authentikit.org/
Wishlist: amzn.to/385dXHD
⏱️ Timestamp:
0:00 intro
Images: other than where stated, images used in the video have been found on commons.wikimedia.org/
#aviationhistory#history#warthunder
Play War Thunder Now! Use my link and get a massive, free bonus pack including vehicles, boosters, and more:playwt.link/calibanrising
Pretty good report. I enjoyed it. Here is what most observers are missing, and I can see this as a pilot myself but certainly not a military pilot.
It is clear to me, that the vast majority of aerial victories were scored against adversary pilot that were surprised, they didn’t even know they were about to be attacked. I sneak attack.
Given this, the most survivable fighter has a huge advantage. That would be the P 47 thunderbolt, and other radial engine fighters.
Hence the P 47 groups retained experienced pilots at a higher rate. These pilots were more capable of killing Nazi adversaries.
In the World War II scenario, the toughest fighters have substantially higher kill ratios. Sure there are other factors but ability to survive sneak attacks is a big deal. Why does no one want to talk about this?
It’s not like dog fights are man against man, Fair Rules. The idea, in reality, if you sneak up on your enemy and kill him, whether in trench combat with infantry, or at 35,000 feet in a sleek fighter.
When you consider the fact that probably 75% or more combat kills are sneak attack, it is no wonder the tough airplanes have the higher kill ratio, By far!
Greg’s airplanes shows that the P 47 thunderbolt pilots faced the cream of the crop of Nazi pilots And decimated them.
Anybody who has his head screwed on straight would rather fly Into combat a tough air-cooled radial engine fighter rather than a vulnerable liquid cooled fighter. Dogfighting advantages were held by both types…. Hence the deciding factor is survivability, especially when the overwhelming number of attack our sneak attack.
Anybody can figure this out but nobody wants to talk about it. Everybody wants to talk about glory and bravery and all that great stuff that is mostly nonsense. The idea is to sneak up on your enemy and kill the b@$t@rd!!
@@steveperreira5850 I really like this analysis. I'm definitely not even knowledge about WW2 air combat, but your points make sense.
You keep calling the P-47 the P-57.
@Thebigredsnake I've listen to this a few times, I can't hear "P-57" in it. Might just be my London accent!😉
That's a lot of work you did. But where where are the German fighters shut down ? The P- 51 shoot down the Germans planes over all of Germany. Not only over the chanal or over northern France or northern Germany. The P-51 didn't give the Germans any rest. and no place to hunt the 8th Airforce.
50 years ago I had the opportunity as a plane-crazy preteen of talking to Gunther Rall at an airshow. I asked him what he thought of the Spitfire (My all-time favourite!). With a twinkle in his eye he said "Young man, I didn't like them very much. They shot me down 3 times!"
Hehehe good one m8.
At least he lived to laugh about it
@@WildBillCox13 A great pilot and a good man to take out time for a crazy 12 year old kid.
Gunther Rall also stated in an interview (Missions That Changed The War) that he had flown all the major aircraft types, German and Allied, and thought the Mustang was the best. That said, as others have pointed out, the P-47 fought and prevailed in the escort role against a much stronger Luftwaffe. By the time the -D model Mustang arrived they were facing a much depleted Luftwaffe. As Greg pointed out 2.5 Mustangs could be built for the cost of one Thunderbolt. And quantity has a quality all its own.
It must have been pretty awesome talking to Gunther Rall in person!
@@jeanneguderian6651 Well you have a very famous last name👍. The huge advantage of the P-51 was it's extended flying range, Speed, Ceiling. Not as maneuverable as the Me 109 and FW 190. And after escort duty coul still roam. Better but to late Me 262. But short range again. If the Germans could have a fighter escort like the P-51. the battle of Britain could have gone otherwise. But all is History. Very few German pilots survived.
Few flew the P-38, P-47 and P-51 in combat against the Luftwaffe. Hub Zemke did. From his book “Zemke’s Wolfpack” with Roger Freeman: ““Ten of the victims had fallen to the guns of the twelve P-51s and my enthusiasm for this fighter increased. While not having the firepower of the P-38 or P-47, IT WAS SUPERIOR ON NEARLY EVERY OTHER COUNT. The P-51 probably couldn’t outclimb a ‘109 or ‘190 but it could outdive and outrun them at any altitude. It could usually out-turn these opponents too. The all-round view was excellent......Best of all, with the large built in tankage and moderate appetite we did not have to sweat over fuel gauges as had been the case with the P-47 and, to a certain degree with the P-38..” -Hub Zemke, CO 56th FG, CO 479th FG.
That ought to put all these "what ifs?" 80 years later to bed. But it probably won't
Did he fly the spitfire?
@@franciscomap75 No, but his 8th AF arch-rival Don Blakeslee certainly did: the Mk V with 401 SQ RCAF, and Mk V and Mk IX with 71 and 133 (Eagle) SQs of the RAF. He flew P-47C/D with the 8th AF 4th FG and P-51B/D as Group CO of the 4th FG. While "on loan" to the 354 FG of the 9th AF in December of 1943, after flying combat missions in the P-51B (that were only supposed to be "orientation flights"), he made it his personal crusade to get the 4th reequipped with the P-51 as soon as humanly possible. When 8th AF Command complained that the couldn't afford for an experienced group to be out of action to retrain, he told them they would "transition on the way to the target". As much as he loved the Spit, Blakeslee said he'd pick the Mustang every time, because, as he put it, "The Mustang could do everything the Spitfire could do, but 800 miles from its base."
@@SpinyNorman2 That's the main thing. Spitfires were great fighters...but had no legs.
@@mavfin8720 Hard to dogfight with one eye on the gas gauge.
Walter Wolfrum German Ace with 137kills. "The P47 wasn't so bad because we could out turn and outclimb it. The P51 was something else. It could do everything we could do and much better. Also it was very hard to recognize from most angles it looked like Me109. We'd see them, think they were ours' and then the damned things would shoot us full of holes ! No, we didn't like them at all.
As all of Wolfrum's 137 official victories victories were scored on the Eastern Front, I would not consider him an expert evaluator of the differences between the P-47 and the P-51.
@@RANDALLBRIGGS Cornell Graduate Student Paul Hoss interviewed former Luftwaffe fighter pilots and on Quora he quotes one " Even in the hands of a merely adequate allied pilot the P51 with the upgraded engine was a deadly adversary." It was Wolfrum who offered the comparison between the P47 and Mustang. Why would he lie Anyway? He must've had some experience with American pilots.
I guess so. The P51 was designed in the United States by a German engineer who worked for Messerschmitt.
#1 reason for P-51 v. P-47. It was cheaper. You got 5 P-51s for the cost of 3 P-47s. Which would you deploy?
@@crowold3025that is a myth. Edgar Schmüd was born in Germany to Austrian parents. He never worked for an aviation company in Europe. I would enter the Austrian Air Force as a mechanic and then after the war he would move to Brazil. In Brazil he would work for general aviation. General aviation was the Brazilian branch of general motors aviation division. He would later move to New Jersey and continue to work for gm aviation until gm purchased north American aviation and merged it with GM's aviation division.
My dad was a Lancaster rear gunner and towards the end of the war did a few daylight ops were they were escorted by allied fighters, according to the Squadron ORB's
P51's got the better of ME262's on the only op he ever mentioned but Spitfires were there too.
To him the Mustang was the boss.
love the lancaster...brits made some really cool planes
Do you have his log book? my dad was a Mustang pilot then with 611 squadron and flew a number of long ranger escort operations in 1945. It would be interesting to compare notes. Furthest was to Berchtesgarden for him.
@@chrisjones6736 A few years I found out the Mustangs on that op were from a 319 Polish Squadron.
Whether my dad ever knew I don't know.
His log book was in a kit bag that got stolen from Crewe Station.He was more bothered that there was 2 pairs of flying boots in the bag.
He was on his way home after being demobbed, service over.
Some years ago his old crew mate sent me a copy of his log book.
What did your dad think of the Mustang??
Some of my dad's squadron were on that op to Berchtesgarten but not his crew.
he loved the Mustang but not as much as a Mk IX Spitfire.
@@chrisjones6736 The daylight ops he did according to his mate's logbook are:
27th March to Farge
4th April to Nordhausen
6th April to Ijmuiden
9th April to Hamburg where they were attacked by those jests.
My favourite view of the iconic Mk IX is from the rear as it climbs.
It's the the most iconic and beautiful piece of machinery ever built.
I bet you and your dad are (mightily) proud of his service as a Spitfire pilot.
I'll check and see if his Squadron ever escorted my dad's, which was 61 out of Skellingthorpe.
PS I didn't know it was the West Lancashire Squadron??
Thats where I'm from and there was an old Auxiliary airbase nearby that we used to play on as kids.
I tend to think that the strength of the P-51, compared to, say, the P-47, was its lower production cost (in dollars and resources), as well as its smaller logistic footprint.
I've seen claims (that I haven't researched) that the P51 used about half the fuel of the P47. Not sure how much this is because of smaller frontal area (thanks to V12 vs radial), other fuselage shape, mechanical supercharger vs turbo, etc... but that would have a huge impact on operational costs and make drop tanks far more effective.
The claim I saw (again, unresearched) is that P51 at cruise was around 50gal/h and in combat around 150gal/h while the P47 was around 100 / 300. If you have limited resources, that can be incredibly important.
I'd love to see real stats about this.
@@totensiebush
Both were good fighters. With their own strengths. And weaknesses. The Mustang's weakness was its suseptability to damage to its cooling system (1). The Thunderbolt's was its fuel usage. Both benefited from an extremely deep logistical support structure. And a training system for replacement pilots. In reality the US could afford the fuel. And fuel usage by the escort fighters was barely a bump compared to the fuel used by 500 to 1000 bombers on one raid.
As to resources used their construction. Packard Merlin production for US aircraft went almost exclusively to P-51 production. A small amount went to some P-40 models. The R-2800 in the Thunderbolt? The same basic engine went into P-47s, F6Fs, F4Us, B-26s, P-61s built by multiple manufacturers. Including Buick, Ford and Nash.
There was one thing the Luftwaffe had as an advantage. At least over Western Europe. For the most part after say early 42 they were fighting over "friendly" territory. If they could bail out they had good odds of being back in their unit in days. Allied pilots over occupied territory? Likely to be POWs.
1) To be fair all liquid cooled fighter engines suffered from the same issues. And for the oil coolers. Liquid or air cooled engines call it a wash.
P-47 was Massively overbuilt and overweight. It was built like a submarine with a double hull. Also the P-51 was one of the most aerodynamic fighters of WW2 (low drag design), it had many innovations to do this, that even Greg is not apparently aware of. P-51 was the better overall design for many reasons, cost, pilot training, logistics, material, etc. being many of those factors.
@@mpetersen6 the P-47 also has multiple oil coolers slung under the bottom of the aircraft, that if hit, will cause the engine to seize, same vulnerability as the P-51.
@@SoloRenegade
Note I stated both aircooled and liquid cooled aircraft suffered from the same vulnerability on that point.
In another reply to this video I also make the point that Luftwaffe fighters were primarily armed with cannon firing explosive shells and some armor piercing. A hit to a structural element of the aircraft much less a vital system by an explosive projectile will cause much greater damage.
Respectfully, I’m getting on in years now and during my earlier years i had the chances to talk to many pilots who flew in WWII and the European theatre. I have seen both the Spit and the P51 in flight and torn down. My personal opinion is that they are both beautiful, purpose built aircraft, absolutely stunning. The opinions of the pilot was that they were magnificent and a joy to fly.
My dear friend, now passed, flew the Typhoon, Hurricane and Spitfire. His opinion of those was, the Hurricane would allow you to show your stuff, fly by the numbers, get the job done. The Spitfire however was a totally different aircraft. I wanted to go, it gave you an unwarranted superior feeling like you had to break the rules, but it would bite you on the *rse very quickly. The Typhoon was every drag racers dream of an aircraft. Terrible in a dogfight, but uncatchable in a straight line. Takeoff was at 80% throttle max, ease it on otherwise, if the wheel were on the ground at any speed and full throttle used, ground loop a surety. Killed many pilots on take off..
Another. Friend who flew a P51 in New Guinea told me they were great. Easy to fly, forgiving but he preferred Spits because you had to fly them.
And the last fellow actually owned both. His opinion was that flying them both was an honour and a privilege, but to get somewhere in comfort, P51. To show off and act like a lunatic, the Spit. Landings, P51 any day, lazy and a gift. The Spit would always bounce, regardless, always 3 point, no wheelers, bounce every time. I was a joy to watch him in the sky, but especially landing, a great pilot.
To work on them was an honour, I could feel the heart, their character. Didn’t do much, hold a scanner here, grease that, get out of the way, lol.
With my frame I wouldn’t get a look in as a pilot, way too big, but I did get to sit in them. The Spit was cramped for me, well so was the P51, but not “shoe horn” tight like the Spit.
So, in my most humble opinion, I think it is like comparing oranges to mandarins. They were both aircraft of a pilot’s dream. They were both built for a job and they performed beautifully and with distinction.
Respect.
P.S. Flying at 5500ft at about 100knots (give or take) and either a Spit or P51 flies underneath you, lifts his nose, aileron rolls, with an old fella on the radio telling you to use the slow lane……. Ah man, flying is great (too old and too crippled to fly now and miss it as much as i miss my old mates. To have mates like that, ain’t life grand.
Thank you for posting.
The more I learn about Doolittle changing the tactics I think is was that the really broke the back of the Luftwaffe. He made destruction of the Luftwaffe fighters a priority. And the Allied fighters he had were capable birds able to do the job if allowed to.
My father was an F86 pilot and would often tell the story of how they would land and the Air national guard guys with the p-51s would look longingly at their f-86s and all the f-86 pilots would look longingly at the p-51s. He always wanted one. He would point out that even bomber pilots came home from the war lusting for the P-51. Jimmy Stewart was an example he would use all the time. It was great to see Tom Cruise fly his personal P-51 in Maverick. Beautiful airplanes.
A very old co-worker assigned to my office was P-47 pilot in the NYANG in the early 50's (under Gabreski). They transitioned to the F-86 and he didn't look back. Much simpler "one lever" power control and beautiful flying characteristics.
In all my years of research, watching videos such as this one, Greg's and others', as well as reading pilot first hand accounts from around the world in WW2 (German, Japanese, US ETO, US PTO, modern warbird pilots, etc.), as well as being a professional pilot and mechanical/aerospace engineer myself, I have found the P-51s reputation overall to be well deserved and justified. It was not necessary to win the war, but it made a difference that was noticed for sure and it far outlived the P-47 post-WW2 as well (as did the F4U).
If you were old enough to watch the Reno air races in the 1950's the Mustangs dominated even though the Merlin engines were faster at high altitudes. I watched them on Saturdays, I never saw a Thunderbolt win any low altitude race. In the late 1950's and early 1960's Bearcat's and won some races. One of the Bearcats had a 3000hp Skyraider engine in it. The Bearcat was a post WWII short range prop fighter designed to fight below 15000 ft.
@@davidfrayne9769 even the P-40 is faster than a P-47 below 15k ft, and more maneuverable than the P-47 too.
Post WW 2, the P-47 would've done better in Korea than the P-51 D. The P-51 H had 50% engine faiilures & weak tail units & was not sent to Korea because of these technical issues.
@@stevetwede9901 While the P-47 'may' have done better, only the P-47N is in the conversation as much of the operation in ealy days was constrained to short Korean runways or flying from Japan as we were pushed back to Pusan. Next - we fight with what we have. Three (0r four) F-51D FG's were based in Japan and the ROCAF had only P/F-51s. Most of the remaining P-47N National Guard units were on East Coast. So, a.) the P-51D was 'in-theatre', b.) the allies (S.Korea, Australia, South Africa) flew the same airplane, c.) logistics and Maintenance was set up for P-51D and you don't turn on Base Depots for complete airframe/engine support overnight. d.) There were far more P-51D than P-47N in USAF/ANG, e.) the operating cost was just over one half and had to be supported by lng distance logistics.
Last but not least, The P-51H was still critical to Air Defense Command as long range interceptor ( as well as F-82), Aside from the design 4g limit load for the P-51H, below the P-51D 7g load (important in Korea rough fields), the P-51H was in fact significantly stronger than P-51/D. It was designed for 7.5g Limit load at 9600 pound max internal combat weight. The P-51 was originally designed at 8g for 8000 pounds. due to mission creep the P-51D at 10,200 pounds was down to 6.3 g for Limit AoA loading.
@@davidfrayne9769 Bearcats never served in WW2
JG26 was deployed at Flanders (Channel Front rather than Homeland Defense in Luftwaffe jargon) throughout most of the War, hence they met Spitfire more often.
In his analysis of bomber escort missions, the Spitfire is not mentioned. Was the Spit ever fitted with external drop tanks and if so, did they escort bombers? I understand that the analysis was hampered by lack of data on other German squadrons. So it's apparent that a lot more work remains to be done to better assess the relative roles off allied fighters in the ETO.
Regardless of how the analysis turns our, I salute every pilot and crew member who strapped an airplane to his (her) back and went into harms way!! The world is a better place because of what you did!
@@stevewaldschmidt4344 At least in 1943, Spitfires typically would escort the 8th AF bombers during the earliest parts of their missions, and at the end of the missions as well. P-47s would pick up at the point that Spitfires had to turn back and go as far as they could before turning back and leaving the bombers to defend themselves. Other P-47s would pick up the returning bombers as deep as they could, and Spitfires would pick them up on the last stage. Spitfires (at least some of them) could carry drop tanks. The cardboard cylindrical tanks that 8th AF fighters later carried were originally developed by the RAF.
@@stevewaldschmidt4344 From the Spitfire V the Spitfires had slipper tanks some say belly tanks They could do 600 miles radius with the 90 gal and did escort RAF bombers and went to the aid of the USAAF on its disastrious second Schweinfurt Raid using slipper tanks
The narrator seems a bit determined to downplay the AAF. Next go lets stay home and leave the UK to fend for itself.
@@realistic.optimist Now here is the sight that greeted the Brits and RAF 17 August 1942 . 12 B17Es heading off for their first mission . Months of anticipation of work by the Brits to make airfields etc . And the first mission is 12 piddling B17s YES 12 and to Rouene France .
Hell back in the Summer of 1940 Hampdens[ The Flying Suitcase] were bombing barges, Bombing the German Heartland laying mines, while getting the shit shot out of them
and way back in Dec 39 the RAF had its first 1000 plane raid Anything that could drop a bomb and fly .
And here we are 32 months later the Mighty USAAF turns up and has only 12 planes on its first mission
Any wonder there was derision
Thanks for your kind words. I do appreciate it. You're doing excellent work here. I do want to mention that the P-47D models with the bubble tops usually had 370 gallons of internal fuel. Most razor backs had 305. In the big picture the 51D still has more range than the 47D but it's closer than most people think.
Thanks Greg, means a lot coming from you. Also, thanks for the clarification, I think I must have been working with the later pilot manual and forgot to subtract those 65 gallons for earlier missions.
Greg - ALLP-47D from 47D-25 onward had the extra 65 gal., The issue as you know was the woeful lack of internal fuel to get it back from Schweinfurt or Berlin or Leipzig. The second issue is not that the range of the later D's ut that it was too late.
Additionally both you and Caliban in this discussion of Combat Radius forget that the P-51 and P-47 were NOT flying in a straight line. The effective ground speed is ~ 205mph for B-17 flying at 25000 feet at 150mph IAS. You forget escort duties require Essing to keep up airspeed, while not leaving the Bombers behind.
@@drgondog thanks for inserting some valid points into this issue of range. I cringe every time I see that classic range-map diagram, which Caliban has rightly dismissed.
The P-47 was only plumbed to take that large drop tank by late Feb 1944 and it could only be pressurized to 18,000' and was a high drag item. They therefore only half filled it and only in the interval between takeoff and climb altitude of 18000 feet was the 100/200gal tub use practical.
The fact that it cost HALF what any other US fighter took to build and its abilities makes it the outstanding fighter of WW2
Not exactly. About 2/3 of a P-47, and a bit more than a P-40. But your point is still entirely valid. The cost to effectiveness ratio was tops, even if another plane may have been its equal or superior in this characteristic or that.
@@jagtone another asset it had that no other fighter had was the extreme bomber escort range it had
@@kennethquinnies6023 p-38s and p-47s could both go as far as the p-51, if given drop tanks. In fact, the p-47n actually had a larger range, and was chosen as the primary AAF fighter for the planned invasion of Japan, with the p-51h to take a subsidiary role. But the p-51 could go farther with less fuel, considering it was lighter, and the Merlin had better fuel economy compared to the R-2800 or two Allisons.
@@kennethquinnies6023 this is true, but, as @margraveofgadsden8997 points out, others could have been adapted for the long range role, just not as cost-effectively.
@@margraveofgadsden8997 The P38 was loved by the German Fighter pilots
I think Greg (of Greg's Airplanes) was right that the main advantage of the P-51 over the P-47 was rather mundane. It was cheaper to build and cheaper to operate. Otherwise both were excellent fighters. The P-47 also excelled as a fighter bomber.
And think of the Allison powered versions employed as ground attack aircraft. The A-36 Apaches. Liquid cooled fighter bombers just don't make sense IMO.
@@mpetersen6 The only reason the A-36 came about was because someone saw the potential of the P-51 and didn't want to waste it. However USAAC restrictions on budget before the US got dragged into the war meant that they couldn't develop it as a fighter. Enter it being developed as a dive bomber and that ruse immediately dying once the US was dragged into the war.
I think the p47 could take more damage then the P51. Is my feeling back up by facts. Would love I somebody could find that out..
@@johnanita9251 Yes, it could. It still had a weakness though. If its fuel lines got hit around where the wings connected to the body the aircraft was prone to catch fire and burn.
@@johnanita9251 Gregs Airplanes and Automobiles on youtube. Subscribe (you will not be sorry) then look up the P-47 series he did 8 videos on the P47 and he also points out that the various simulations pit early p-47s against late war German varients. His video on supercharging and turbocharging in the P-47 series is VERY enlightening since it covers other a/c. P-47s came home with 2-3 cylinders shot off the engine. The is DOCUMENTED. The v-12s, none of them could do this. And at bomber escort altitudes 25000+ the P-47 had the advantage in speed and maneuverability over all but the very last German fighters and then only the Dora 9 was faster and then only running water methanol AND nitrous. Robert S Johnson described one of the 56th FG’s P47s coming home after shearing off the telephone pole with a wing. AND he also stated in an interview that the Zemke pulled the wings off the p-51 he was flying. The official story was that it was clear air turbulence. But Johnson and Zemke were both aces from the 56th and he knew Zemke during and after the war. Finally the 56th FG refused the P-51. The P-47 story in Europe is laced with lies and deception by the highest levels in the USAAF which if you watch Greg’s videos will become obvious. Greg thinks that, based on Robert S Johnson’s statements on speed that his “Penrod and Sam” P-47D was running 2800 HP. Since by that time they were running 150 octane and the R2800 would run at this power level for HOURS in test stand testing. P&W engineers came to England and ran classes telling crew chiefs how to hot rod the turbo chargers. Thus when Johnson stated that he was never again outclimbed by a German fighter with his paddle bladed equipped P47 it is very likely true. AND Johnson's war record, planes shot down per mission flown, is better than Gunther Rall’s but he as sent home for bond rallies and to train pilots. Rall had no such luck.
The lion share of the rise in 8th AF victories over the Luftwaffe, noted briefly here, was Doolittles’s January 44 decision to “Pursue and Destroy.” And now by February with 3 P-38 groups, 3 Mustang Groups and 8 P-47 groups. How effective was the P-51? In March 44 3 P-51 groups score 251, 8 P-47 groups 175, and 3 P-38 groups just 26. From Dec 43 to DDay, P-51s score 1157, P-47s 911, and P-38s 170.
Well well Nov 43 to Mar 44 Spitfire IXs in Operation Pointblank shot down 2950 enemy that is more than the P51 P47 and P38 combined
Source Morgan and Shacklady Spitfire the History Page 312
Anyone else here watching this after watching the P-47 Thunderbolt series from Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles?
Yes!
Yes.
Yup and knew it was the P-47.
His channel is the gold standard for this kind of niche
Yes, P47 wins 👍
And in the book JG 26 by Adolf Galland on page 214 he stated, "in the P-47D the Americans had an airplane capable of driving the Luftwaffe from the skies" And these were razorback "D's".
I worked with the grandson of Adolf Galland.. Larry Galland… he’s the one that got me interested in the P51. A P51D used to fly over my house at 11am every Saturday … he’s the one that told me what it was and where it flew from.
Dont forget the P51 flew much longer missions that the spitfire couldn’t .. and the Spirfire was involved with much larger dogfights.. many more planes…
P51 pilots had been in planes for hours.. then attacked … spitfires got to attack much faster and German pilots had been in the air for hours. I flew a P51D in Kissimii Fl for 42 min at $1 per second … worth every penny!!!
This is a nerd's/pencil pusher's debate. And a pointless one, to boot.
All three were distinctly different planes with distinctly different roles. The Spit was a pure interceptor that could turn, climb and dive with the best of them as long as it didn't have to go anywhere; the P-47 was primarily a high-altitude interceptor that also later proved itself as a ground-attack specialist; and the P-51 was an all-around, long-range escort that was fast and effective at all altitudes.
Answering which was better ultimately boils down to role and situation. Generally speaking, the pilot with the initiative, energy and experience advantage is going to win, regardless of what he is flying.
There is a point, one which you appear to have missed. The video is addressing the popular claims that the P-51 was the plane that destroyed the Luftwaffe's fighter force and that it was the only aircraft capable of long range escort.
@@nerdyali4154 I've never seen any reputable historian make that claim. That's like the idiots who claim the Merlin was the engine--or the Spitfire the plane--that "won the war."
No serious researcher would assert these things, so wasting time to debunk such statements only serves to give them a modicum of legitimacy in the eyes of the casual public.
Good video. I enjoyed the opinions and appreciate the legwork.
As a long-time Thunderbolt stan and a contrarian in general, I think the P-51 is the young man's favorite plane, in a "top trumps" kind of way. Doesn't hurt that it's a beautiful plane (like the Spitfire.) And it was an excellent airplane too, no denying it. But I think it means that some other planes that were significant in killing lots of Axis pilots and winning the war get overlooked. I'd like to call out the P-40 and the Hurricane especially, with honorable mention to the P-39 on the Eastern Front. P-40s of all varieties held the line in the early days in every theater of the war. Their impact over Europe was quite a bit less, but that was mostly because by the time the fighting was actually over Europe, better planes were available. But over Africa? P-40s did great work. And the Hurricanes shot down 55% of Luftwaffe planes in the Battle of Britain. My point being that as you learn more and more, you start to see the appeal of "worse" planes and understand the context they worked in. Plus the razorback P-47 is just a mean-looking airplane.
A similar idea plays out in the Pacific. You get the meme that Wildcats were completely outclassed by A6Ms and Ki-43s, and in some metrics, sure. But the Wildcats held the line and killed a LOT of Japanese pilots. Midway? Coral Sea? Wildcats fought to draw. Guadalcanal? Even with most of the pilots sick with malaria, it was never worse than even with the Japanese. Hellcats and Corsairs are monsters, improving in every way on the Wildcat. But until they were available, the Wildcat did just fine in a very tough situation. The F4F was reasonably fast, not terrible range, rugged, and put out a lot of fire compared to its opponents.
You could even find nice things to say about the Brewster Buffalo; look what the Finns did to the Russians with them.
Zach actually the Hurricane is credited with 65 % of kills in the Battle of Britain
The funny thing is that the F4F is a really stupidly maneuverable thing. It can outturn (with some difficulty) a BF 109G and K series and also outturns any FW190 series. If i’m not mistaken it can roll with most 109 versions as well, though it cannot match the 190A and Ds roll.
It just looked fat and clumsy compared to the insanely light A6M2 and 3 models. This more shows the difference in design philosophy of the Japanese and Germans seeing as the Germans would prioritise aircraft meant for BnZ from the start while the Japanese would prioritise roll, maneuverability and only later added some armour plating to their aircraft like the Kawanishi N1K2J
The P-51 had nmore range than the P-47, except the very late war Pacific variant. It could do something the 'Jug' could not do, but the Jug was a great attack plane, something you didn't want to do as much in a P-51. Great planes, different strengths. Comparing them head-to-head is wasting your time.
@ Zach - Re: "Guadalcanal? Even with most of the pilots sick with malaria, it was never worse than even with the Japanese. Hellcats and Corsairs are monsters, improving in every way on the Wildcat. But until they were available, the Wildcat did just fine in a very tough situation. The F4F was reasonably fast, not terrible range, rugged, and put out a lot of fire compared to its opponents."
The F4F Wildcat embodied the idea of making do with what you had. The design had strengths, and innovators such as naval aviator and officer John Thatch created tactics to overcome its weaknesses against the then-formidable Mitsubishi A6M Zero-sen "Zero" fighter and other designs. Wildcats could absorb a lot of punishment and stay airworthy, and they also had armor protecting the pilot, and self-sealing fuel tanks, neither of which the lightweight A6M had. It also had a homing beacon system, which could help the pilot to find his carrier if he got within 30 miles or so of it - great comfort for a pilot exhausted and maybe low on fuel after a mission.
A shout-out to the courageous men of the Coast Watchers - stay-behinds on Japanese-held islands such as Buka in the northern Solomon Islands - who collected intelligence on Japanese aircraft and missions headed towards Guadalcanal and radioed early warning to USN/USMC pilots, a critical advantage which allowed the under-manned "Cactus Air Force" to have planes in the air at the right places and right times to engage the Japanese inbound to bomb Henderson Field and other targets. The Coastwatchers - men of incredible courage who went largely unrecognized for many years after the war - may have saved the embattled men on the 'Canal, so great was their contribution to final victory.
@@GeorgiaBoy1961 The Wildcat was very good and more than held its own
What this reminds me of is how trite and simplistic most TV documentaries are. The actual losses and affects of any single weapon system is rarely, if ever, simple to account for.
I believe the F4U Corsair was the best allied aircraft of WW2.
However, I think the P47D’s were the best USAAF aircraft.
What i love about the mustang is its a true story of cooperation. Its an American airframe and British engine.
Yes, and Packard built a LOT of those Merlin engines in the US.
@@mavfin8720 that's even better. Shared manufacturing, more cooperation.
@@paulbeaney4901 Freedom's Forge by Arthur Herman. About the US gearing up to feed, clothe and arm the Allies and themselves, including the Russians.
@@mavfin8720 And didn't they get paid well for it?
16:57 I think you meant miles/gallon, not gallons/mile. This actually shows one factor not mentioned that made the P-51 preferable. The lower amount of fuel needed to operate it. When every gallon of fuel has to cross the Atlantic to air bases in the UK, an aircraft that uses 35% of the fuel to operate compared to its alternative is a very attractive aircraft.
Yes, fuel efficiency is a factor.
I would argue that a bigger factor is bringing the pilot home alive because it is very expensive to train them and it is very much an advantage to have longer lived experience Le pilot.
And that is why all of the top aces of the European theater for the American, they were P 47 pilots. You can’t argue with that. It’s because you will live to see another day in a P 47 compared to anything else, especially the pretty liquid cooled engine pussycat planes like the P 51 and the Spitfire.
@@steveperreira5850 Oh absolutely you want to bring your pilots home alive. Totally agree. But we need to look at not only fighter pilot losses, but bomber crew losses as well.
The problem with the P-47 is while it was far more survivable for the fighter pilot, it didn't have the range to cover the B-17's longest missions, so that had to be done by the P-51.
The loss rate of bomber crews dropped dramatically when they had fighter cover all the way to the target and back again. If that mission could be done by a P-47 I'd argue it was better for that, but not all missions could be covered by the Jug.
Considering that America was fighting in the Pacific and in Europe and supplying the allies with fuel and equipment ,at this point in the war fuel use became an issue.
The fact that with its disposable fuel tanks it had the range to be the first single seater fighter to been seen by Berliners in the sky above them. They then knew that the end was near.
The P-47 with its radial engine was much better for ground attack. The radial engine also requires more warmup time prior to flight. But it was armed with eight.50 caliber Brownings. It was a formidable aircraft especially after they added the paddle props.
The P-51cdid a lot to eliminate the opposition in the air once it was released to go hunting for German airfields trains, convoys and other ground targets. Shooting up trains puts a real dent in hte moving of supplies be it bandages, food ammo or fuel. that was reflected in its range.
In all fairness the Spitfire was built as a interceptor meaning waiting on the enemy to come to you that was reflected in it combat range.
you're right about one of the advantages of a radial engine: it's typically less susceptible to combat damage than an "inline" (really a V). in reality this is an air cooled vs water (or glycol) cooled thing rather than engine shape, but close enough.
tHE us LOST 2600 p47 IN THE g/a ROLL IN 12 MONTHS RAF Typhoon lost 670 in 3 years and it was exclusively a Rhubarb G/A plane for over two of them They are the Planes thart destroyed a gERMAN aRMY AT THE fALAISE gAP
Had trouble with the Keys
@@totensiebush Actually that radial engine does create problems with the aerodynamics. They can be overcome but it makes things more complicated.
My great-uncle George was in the CBI in B-29s. I recall him saying that as soon as they had normal pressures in everything they would take off from India. The “corncob” radial engines, straining against takeoff weight, would be overheated by the time they got to cooler air, and within two hours the interior of the pressurized crew spaces would be covered with frost.
Looking at the top 10 US Pilot Aces from WWII, only one was a Mustang pilot. 3 were P-38 pilots, 2 were P-47 pilots. (1 was a Hellcat, 2 were Corsairs and one flew British fighters.)
Best kill ratio belong to Brewster Buffalo.Top 2 FAF aces had 39 and 34 kills with Buffalo.
That doesn't tell much, because the allies outnumbered the Germans and shooting down planes is often a result of teamwork.
Year of introduction and type of mission come into play too. The p51 is obviously a better plane than the p47, but has less kills
It tells that P51 pilots didn't live as long.
Well seeing as the P51B did not appear until Dec 43 and the P51D Jun 44 There was not much time until the end of the War
@jacktattis If we aren't going to measure the best combat craft based on combat results, what measure should be used?
Adolph Galland observed the wreck of a P-47 which had twin drop tanks under the wings over the single centerline drop tank. When he tried to warn Goering that fighter escort into Germany was just around the corner. Goering responded "You did not see that! That's an order!"
And.... Politicians have not changed.
I had the pleasure of reading Adolph Galland,s book ,I think it was called" I flew for the Feurer"great story and a great man a gentleman.
CalibanRising - a couple of more comments additional to the ones below regarding P-47D vs P-51B range determinants. My research for Bastard Stepchild, which I dwelled on in laborious detail concerning the introduction of the 85 gal fuse tank, showed the following;
1. NAA responded to Arnold directive and Fairchild's FAREP with two proposals; First adding cells to wing leading edge of P-51B, and second addng a 90 gal stainless steel tank under proposal and acceptance of MCR 326 Fuel Tank and Kits in early July 1943 ~ July 5 1943 by General Bradshaw. It also direced completion of prototype for Bradley test by July 17. Bradley's Exteremly important role was to get approval from Echols to accelerate introduction of P-51B, not to add the tank.
2. MCR 326 also directed NAA to equip 3 P-51B-1 serial # 43-12388, 389 and 390 and send to Eglin field for testing. That was done.
3. The language from NAA egineering was "There would be an aft CG location with full 85 gallon tanks - not Dangerous to Fly as referenced to Kindelberger. That said, NAA suggested 55gal tank initially to Barney Giles request for 200gal.
4. The flight tests at Eglin concluded that a fully loaded P-51B-1 as tested presented serious potential flight control issues in Accelerated manuevers. The condition cited was very low stick forces leading to actual stick reversal to control a hard turn - and required caution while burning 25+gallons to restore Normal manuerving control. Bob weights were added for further assistance. Snap rolls at high speed were most serious.
As a matter of practice 8th and 9th and 15th AF Mustang groups either a.) filled to 65 gal or b.) for very long mission, burn 25+ gal on climb from formation assemby. Actual operations dictated practice.
Individual cicumstances dictated different mission processes. When my father led the Last FRANTIC mission over Warsaw he directed the 355th to burn only 10-15 gal during climb to cruise and then switch to externals. The 355th flew essentially a straight line close to Baltic coast, switched to 85 gal tank near Berlin and burned down to 25 gal before switching to mains. When he landed at Piryatin near Kiev he had logged nearly 8 hours from Steeple Morden.
Good video and I have commented previously.
Regards,
Bill Marshall
The P47 doesn't get enough love.😢
For what it's worth, during the planning of VLR missions to escort the B-29 over Japan it was noted that the P-47 and P-51 were equal in range and the P-47 had tactical advantages due to it's ruggedness, but the Mustang was "the favorite of all pilots for air-to-air combat."
I think you meant to say the P 51 was the “overall favorite.“ And why not, it is prettier. And having been in the Air Force I know that the way it works. There are plenty of dead P 51 pilots That would have lived a long life and retirement had they been instead flying a P 47. That is the absolute truth.
@@steveperreira5850 20th Air Force HQ Office of Commanding General memo of 06/02/45: "the P-51 is the favorite of all pilots for the most part engaged in air combat."
@@steveperreira5850
*_"There are plenty of dead P 51 pilots That would have lived a long life and retirement had they been instead flying a P 47. That is the absolute truth."_*
Absolute unadulterated nonsense. Provably so.
Where would you like to start?
I find it fascinating that you went through these myriad conditions and their respective numbers. Well done.
Thanks for watching Glenn!
As an engineer, pilot, and amateur fighter aviation historian, I really appreciate the hard data given here. The effect of the P-51 on bomber losses is hard to find, so the quote here of 7.5% losses per mission to about 3% average losses is very illuminating. The only thing missing here is the effect of the cost of the fighters. The P-51 was $51k per plane, and achieved a 1.8x better kill ratio than the $83k P-47. On a kills per dollar basis, it was 2.9x better. Add in that it reduced bomber losses by 60%, and its effect on the war had to well exceed 5x per dollar that of the P-47. Since cost is a proxy for available resources, the P-51 was a much better use of crucial limited resources, and thus the far superior warplane.
The Guys that flew the P-47 early on were heroes, with faulty drop tanks, toothpick propellers and no water injection to get the most from the R2800 they still took on the Yellow Noses (JG 26). Things got better fast but until then, MAN!
Always behind the Spitfire
@@jacktattis Seems like a 109 was always behind a Spitfire.
@@jacktattis Personally, I'd take the Jug every time. Much better chance of it getting you home.
@@darrenjpeters Really not if you were doing Ground Attack 2600+ were lost in that role.
@@johnneill990 I dont think so Bf109 were easy meat from the MkIX on
Something you neglected to mention, JG 26 shot down 378 Spitfires compared to only 122 Mustangs:
"The first Mustang claimed by the Luftwaffe was claimed on 19 Aug 1942. Between then and the end of the war the Luftwaffe claimed 1,034 P-51’s and 1,752 Spitfires, as I said above. Of the Spitfires, 943 of them (54%) were claimed by the combined units of JG 2 (349), JG 26 (378) and JG 54 (219). For P-51 claims, these same units accounted for 122 (JG 26), 69 (JG 2), and 52 (JG 53). That is 23.5% of all the P-51 claims."
Do you realise Spitfires first Combat was 16 Oct 39 so almost 3 years before the Mustang and how many Germans were shot down by both
@@jacktattis Jack I clearly indicated that these numbers reflect claims made by various Luftwaffe fighter groups after 19 August 1942. Whatever happened prior to that date is irrelevant regarding my comment as well as the video itself.
@@thomasmurphy6595 Well f it was after August 42 there is no way the Mustang was better than the Spitfire MkIX
The Germans could not distinguish between the MkV and MkIX By the time they could , it was too late . It was all over bar the shouting
@@jacktattis You don't understand the thread do you? Let me spell it out for you: Caliban Riding's analysis is inherently flawed because JG 26's recorded claims and kills represent a severely circumscribed version of a much larger campaign.
You're a Spitfire fanboy, and as such you have a right to your opinions - but the British plane was incapable of performing the crucial role which the Mustang fulfilled during an important part of the bombing campaign over Germany. The Mustang performed so well, in fact, that daylight bombing eventually became safer than bombing at night.
@@thomasmurphy6595 too right I am a spitfire fan boy The US had nothing to touch it
Somehow you made a bunch of crunchy numbers interesting. Nicely done, and thank you for doing it. 👍
Lol, no problem. I'm getting a little obsessed with my spread sheets recently. I'm sure there will be more video like this in the future!
The "hype" about the mustang is a little like the Sherman in that is was a good enough piece of equipment that could be where it was needed in sufficient quantity. And honestly that IS a pretty big deal and hype worthy. It's easy to get caught up on casualties and airborne victories but I read one statistic that Germany spent half the entire war expense on the Luftwaffe mostly defending the country. That absolutely had an affect on the war even if a single Luftwaffe pilot wasn't lost
I believe the Mustang, unlike the Sherman, was more than just good enough. 😊
And if asis would win war we would be arguing now which one was best fighter of war,Me-109 or Fw190.
axis.
@@michaelphillips2079 The Sherman was a heap of junk an insult to those who served in it, tommy cooker
@@michaelphillips2079 I mean so was the Sherman. The entire issue surrounding the Sherman is a case of confirmation bias and a lack of contextual knowledge.
The P-47 was an excellent airframe. Especially once 150 octane AV-GAS was widely available.
Oh boy... This is a bottomless pit and nothing like the trump card that has been claimed. Have a look at _Military Aviation History_ channel's two and a half hour interview with Calum E. Douglas. There seems to have been no universal standard for measuring octane rating. Furthermore, it varies dramatically, not just with additives and water but with boost and altitude. In fact, it seems to vary with just about everything.
I have sold to and listen to a great man who flew first the P-38 and then the P-51 in Europe with the 8th. What he tells me is that when they flew the P-38s the Luftwaffer had better pilots and more gas and by the time the P-51 came out they wher3 just a shell of what they once were. He also flew the Spitfire. Loved and hated it , loved it because it flew so nice hated it because of all that gas right in front of him “ not good” his words. Asked with one of the three he like the most. The P-38. It got him home on one engine more times then the others would. Plus he also said they when he was in P-38 the Lufftwaffer mostly just tried to ignore them. Ie would not ingauge them. That what he told me
P38s were easy meat to the Luftwaffe
@@jacktattis Till the J model came on the scene. Especially the J-25 had all the features - better later than never - what the Lightning pilots needed so much: dive brakes and hydro-servo ailerons, also realible engines/chargers. All the J models had rewised engine and intercooler/turbosupercharger system. But when they started to appear at the ETO the early P-51 models also did. Fighter pilots needed a big change, the whole cost per airplane was much better for the P-51, some potent fighters needed at the PTO as well, and the rest is history.
@@Cuccos19 Still easy meat
@@Cuccos19 the worst Tactical Mach in the USAAF
There were some pretty notable German Pilots who are on record arguing to the contrary. Even Adolf Galland spoke highly of it and said so on more than one occasion. FTR, can I assume that you do know that the top two highest scoring aces for the AAF both flew the P38? I would think a reasonably well-informed person might conclude that the worst plane in the AAF inventory would be unlikely to have earned that particular distinction - just a thought. Perhaps Yamamoto could have offered some insight on their general combat effectiveness in the moments before one chased him down and sent him off to dwell with his ancestors.
don't forget that late in the war, there were far fewer German pilots left to shoot at and far more allied fighters fighting over the opportunity to shoot them down. this is something that plays out in multiple places in the war.
Not only fewer, as a cohort the German pilots became less experienced with time. They had an advantage at start, vaging very much an existential war - compared with the US - the pilots did not rotate home. With time this advantage was mitigated, except for the few surviving aces.
Yes. Both the Germans and the Japanese geared up for a short war, and didn't set up their pilot pipeline correctly. By 1944 they were sucking air on pilots. For contrast, the US Navy sent a LOT of veterans back to the States after Midway to help get the training pipeline set up for the future.. And it worked.
The mustang joined the P47 as long range bomber escort... range was its main advantage.
By the time P51s were fighting over occupied territory post DDay, the LW was at its weakest, without fuel, experienced pilots etc.
The RAF spitfires, Typhoons etc were doing the grunt work against the LW at its strongest
Greg of "Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles" argues, effectively in my opinion, that the air war in Europe was won by the time that the P-51 became an important factor.
The German Ace and respected Post war Luftwaffe lead Gunther Raul summed it up perfectly. He said the arrival of the P-51 as the biggest factor in the turning point in the air war to the Allies favor.
Uh, 100% no. Tactics change did that. P47 had same number of aircraft lost even though they flew 4X more missions/hours than the Mustang and had to not only take on the Luftwaffe at its strongest, but also had to attack ground targets as well which the Mustang did not do. PS: P47 was faster and more maneuverable at high speed than the P51 at anything over 20,000ft and could follow in a dive faster as well of enemy bouncing. Lower than this, yes Mustang was better.
The air war was already in the allies favour before that though. Germany was largely defensive in air capability against the west long before, and at the mercy of allied strategic bombing.
@@w8stral Uh NO. RANGE and Manueverability changed the game, which is the most imporant attribute Rall highlighted when he stated that the Mustang was Allies best fighter. Until Post D-day, the Mustang was strafing (airfields, tains, barges) far more than P-47 - while returning from places like Berlin, Posnan,Munich - far out of range of the P-47D. No, they didn't fly 4X more missions in WWII (about 2X but about the same number of hours). No, it (P-47D) was not faster than P-51B/D until around 30K (where Nobody as fighting), and NO it was never 'more maueverable' than the P-51B/D at high or low speed. The P-47M/N were slightly faster than the P-51D but they were contemporaries of the P-51H - which out performed both P-47M/N
@@drgondog You uh , need to actually read some base material. P47 has effectively identical range to the P51. The lies by bomber command covering their ASSES over the Schweinfurt raids about P47 range are gone over with a fine comb by Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles channel here on YT if you wish to inform yourself of this basic reality. P47 Flew 4X as many sorties and had ~1/3 -->1/4 the loss rate per sortie of the P51 while mid 44 onwards was tasked near exclusively with ground target attacking where the P47 racked up roughly 5X as many ground targets destroyed as the P51(not aircraft claimed which is a BS claim as no one knows how many times each aircraft was straffed for instance). Next; in theatre more P47's than P51's. Everything you just typed is false.
Only for a very short period of time was the P51 faster(low altitudes all periods of time) than the P47 due to its lack of a spinner for cooling purposes but rather just produce as many aircraft as possible, and then only barely at mid altitudes and higher(early 44') until the crews learned to add more boost to all of their P47's(before June 44' where they once again got another boost from new 150 octane fuel which made ALL P47's faster than ALL P51's in theatre at mid altitudes(20k ft and above)) ... And yes, P47 is more maneuverable at high speed than any other fighter other than the Tempest which showed up in 45' with a whopping handful of squadrons and Me262 which reigned supreme. Why? do all 3 of these aircraft have SUPERIOR maneuverability at speed? A little thing called rigidity of airframe. They weigh more for a REASON dear dingus! Not because the engineers were stupid. A spitfire for instance can't maneuver worth a shit past 400mph its wings twist into pretzels and so do the wings on the P51 so they effeictively cannot do change of direction at speed. A6M Zero is the epitome of cannot dogfight at high speed where all wildcats had to do was hit around 350mph and the Zero literally became a lawn dart effectively(straight line fighter only or VERY sloooooowwwww roll rate ~medium pitch rate). Since the wildcat could not hold a level speed of 350mph is the reason initially it did not perform well as they were trying to fight at slower speeds where the A6M zero had the maneuverability edge.
Give you a hint: Books/wikipedia lie unless they have charts for maneuverability at altitude and speeds, upgrade paths, dates, etc. There is a reason in tests 1945/post WWII, USAF chose the P47 to try and intercept the B29's, not the P51 and its not because they were stupid...
@@w8stral High speed maneuverability counted for very little in actual combat. High speed hit and run depended on the opponent not seeing you. Once he saw you he turned and your dive approach was ruined... This is why low speed turn fighting produced more kills, and provided the pilot had a light touch and flew the Razorback, he had the superior low speed turn fighter to a P-51... The P-47 Bubbletop was about on par or inferior to the P-51. In left low speed turns the P-47 Razorback could match or beat the 109, while the FW-190A was slightly better in slow speed turns than either. The Spitfire could pull harsh nose movements and briefly shoot across the curve at smaller German circles, but was better used as hit and run. It got worse after the Mark V. This Spitfire drastic low speed turning inferiority to the 190 (and 109) implies a problem with the physics. See my channel for further details.
Author Marc Liebman noted the P-51 was chosen over the P-47 because it handled high speed compressibility better.
I'm sorry but what is 'high speed compressibility'? I'm kind of new to aviation things, is it to do with airflow to the engine or something?
@@ilikepankakesuk Its a function of Speed of sound and airspeed Greg does a good explanation
czcams.com/video/wwP6qv8jOhI/video.html
Chosen when ?
@@ilikepankakesuk this refers to the effect of airflow as the aircraft reaches the speed of sound. No WW2 aircraft was truly supersonic, however some designs were able maneuver better than others even as they approached the speed of sound.
@@Bidimus1 evidently sometime between Dec 1943 and Dec 1944 as shown @8:30.
Unlike other fighters, the Mustang had enough range so that it could loiter over the target after the bombers left. It could chase down German fighters and strafe ground targets.
The Merlin engine was more efficient than the US engine meaning it got more miles out of its Tank
A sorta "thought we were gone?"
@@insomniacbritgaming1632 Do you mean the re-engineered formerly low spec Merlin that couldn't be mass produced until US mass production tolerances were utilized?
@@brasidas2011
*_"Do you mean the re-engineered formerly low spec Merlin that couldn't be mass produced until US mass production tolerances were utilized?"_*
No, that isn't true (but you never intended that is should be, did you?). The Merlin was examined by Ford (Birmingham, UK) and found to be too much of a bespoke engine so the drawings were re-done just prior to the war. As a result - and through the work of Rolls-Royce and Ford - mass production was already possible. This can be found in Stanley Hooker's book, _'Not Much of an Engineer'._
When it was decided to mass produce it in the United States, Packard made some changes, some of which were adopted by the British and some which were not. The bolt up crankcase developed by Packard cured the problems of the -45 series monobloc engines but the British didn't use water injection in the -60 series Merlins, while the American-built Merlins did.
@@thethirdman225 I meant what I wrote, If that is a problem for you...*shrug*
I think the main difference is fighter command moved them to roles suited to their strengths. The P-47 became the multi-role fighter - durable in ground attack (radial engine) and some escort. The P51 was a liability in ground attacks due to cooling system on the bottom of the plane so it was mainly escort role.
I would not say losing 2600 in the G/A role was durable for the P47
@@jacktattis I would not say you brits will survive without the high octane fuel from the US at the prelude of the war.
@@jacktattis you know what is the overhype plane? its the spitfire! Your spits was no match to the BF109-E without the US high octane fuel.
@@cloviscontado4069 Luck of the draw my friend
@@cloviscontado4069 Quite true and isn't it great that your chemists and Rolls Royce were on the the money.
I think it is a very important pinch of salt there - JG26 was, as I understand it, a fairly forward positioned wing, including being used for ground attack during and after D-Day, and would therefore be disproportionately facing the shorter-range fighters like Spitfires compared to a wing that was more focused on home defence further back.
The more interesting aspect is the range of the later P-47s on full drop tanks being fairly close. It suggests that if the P-51 hadn't existed, there probably would have been more pressure to make a long-range variant of the P-47 earlier in the war that could do the job - basically, an earlier and less advanced P-47N.
The German unit to study would be JG 1. They were stationed in North Germany and were facing the deep bomber raids from mid-1943.
@@Wien1938 But that wouldn't fit our predetermined narrative, here, sir.
As an American, I have to ask, what is the controversy? I'm 63 and have been a fan of WWII aircraft for 53 years and I can't recall anyone disputing the fact that the R.A.F. almost single-handedly destroyed the Luftwaffe. Nobody of any historical background of note will disagree, ever!
Hermann Goering said that when he saw Mustangs over Berlin, he knew the war was lost.
It is also said that he said the same thing about the DH Mosquito
Germans started calling him Meyer
I have read some Luftwaffe pilot accounts saying they feared the Spitfire most out of the opponents they faced and this video seems to legitimize that viewpoint.
The one's that feared the P51 are dead.
Saw the superb Greg's Airplane P-47 video you refer to.
After his review of the P-47 drop tank usage ( or in this case misuse) it is clear the P-47 was grossly and unnecessarily handicapped.
Long range P-47 drop tanks were tested and approved in early 1943 but incompetent leadership did not provide them to the squadrons until much later.
That cost many bomber crews their lives in 1943 and early 1944 that did not have proper escorts.
One thing which should be mentioned is cost. The P51 might only be the equal of the P47 or the P38, but it was way cheaper to build at scale.
You could buy two mustangs for each lightning and if I recall correctly it was something like three p47s for every five p51s.
A big part of winning a war is being able to produce weapons efficiently. Even if the war was won by that point, the choice to mass produce mustangs probably shortened the war in both Europe and The pacific just by saving money which could then be funneled into other things.
A fascinating study with plenty of worthwhile detail, but you left out one critical factor: Cost. Could the P-47 have been adapted to the long-range escort role? The P-47N suggests that it could have, and Jugs, originally designed as interceptors, were always great air-to-air fighters at altitude. Axis pilots genuinely feared them. P-38? Yeah, once it's problems had been worked out and Lindbergh had figured out how to extend its range, although its limitations in a dive would always hamstring it against top-shelf adversaries. But both those planes cost considerably more than Mustangs to build. (The Spit, as magnificent as it was, never had the legs for this role. I suspect all its success against JG26 was when either or both were flying from forward bases.) The P-51 was capable & effective right out of the box, had the necessary range & performance without major redesign, and was economical enough to be able to flood the skies with them. That, IMHO, is the real reason it became THE air superiority fighter over Germany (and Japan) by late 44/early 45. (I also wonder if P&W R2800 production wasn't prioritized for planes other than the P-47: Corsairs, Hellcats, Marauders, Invaders, etc.
No the JUGS could NOT dive
An interesting discussion. I agree with the bulk of you conclusions. In short I would say the P-51 was the best tool for the job at hand but not the only tool that could do the job. The later P-47 models like the P-47N would have certainly had the legs for long escort missions and probably would have arrived much sooner had the P-51 not already been there. I think as you had mentioned the JG26 data is flawed because where a unit was stationed and its role would impact which aircraft it was likely to face. As far as flak vs aircraft i do recall reading in Adolf Galland's book that Hitler had launched a tirade about the lack of kills of Allied bombers by A/C vs Flak and thought it wiser to spend the resources on more Flak guns than fighters.
I was at a family reunion in '95 and unexpectedly relatives from the family still in Germany had come over. One had been a Messerschmidt pilot. I asked him general questions, not wanting to appear as prying. I think i asked him at one point how he felt the Luftwaffe stacked up. And, not braggingly, he said they were the masters of the sky, just as a matter of fact. But, he said, when they found out what the P51 was, and that there was one in the vicinity, he said they immediately booked it straight into the sun or any nearby cloud they could find. They wanted no part of that action.
I think Gregs comments are correct; the P-51(D) was a competitive aircraft, without being significantly better in combat quality.
But what it principally had going for it was it was able to do the required mission, at a considerably lower cost than any other feasible alternative.
Also:
The fact that when it was able to turn up in numbers - it was using better fuel, had better mechanical reliability, pilot training and availability than its opposition, was what made it the correct tool for the job, in the relatively narrow window of time that it operated.
Long range interceptor is a pretty specialized type of fighter. There are a lot of other scenarios and fighters more suitable at lower altitudes. Especially given the radiator Achilles heel
Radiator achilles heel Rubbish Spitfire PR WELL ABOVE ANY RADIAL ENGINE Hell the MkXIX PR 49000ft
Yes a Long range interceptor is a pretty specialized type of fighter. It is a petty that the P-51 was never originally designed for that role but as a Long range low level ground attract fighter
It was the best fighter for bomber escort. Goering was alarmed by its appearance over Berlin. German, or for that matter British, Identification of fighters was not always reliable. Hurris were often mistaken for Spitfires and Allied aircraft for German, but a P51 over Berlin couldn't be mistaken for anything else. Both sides over-claimed, usually in good faith.
I don’t think total casualties is a fair metric on how effective a fighter is. The majority of the spitfires dog fights have occurred over England or the channel. Almost any fighter shot down would have resulted in a pilot casualty or capture. Where the mustang frequently engaged over enemy held territory. So if the pilot survived being shot down they would not have been counted in this metric. And the point of the mustang was to keep the enemy fighters at bay so the bombers can wipe out their war production, for which they were very effective. Where the primary purpose of the spitfire was point defense.
I never herd a german pilot talk about how he ran out of ammo trying to shoot down any aircraft except for the P-47.
The later Bf-109K was apparently a strong match for the P-51D in terms of their performance characteristics. I remember that the best compliment that German ace Günther Rall could come up with for the P-51 was "There were so many of them!" And he also said that he could escape from any US fighter in the Bf-109 by climbing, as the lighter Bf-109 could always outclimb the US fighters.
Fair enough The allied fighters were better in the dive.
I suppose Gunther Rall in a 109 is quite different from a rookie in a 109?
Part of that is the advantage a relatively short-range defensive fighter is going to have as an interceptor, due to less fuel capacity and no need for any weight devoted to any ground attack capabilities. The same could be said about the Mig-21 relative to our Vietnam era fighters.
@@georgeturner2374 excellent point many fail to account for. Same is true for the Spitfire as well, maneuverable and light, but short ranged.
I disagree. P-47D-5 with added water injection and modifications of engine to maintain 70mm of manifold pressure, with 100-150 octane fuel by field modifications was better at climbing at medium and high altitudes than any german fighter. Normal max manifold pressure from factory was around 56mm, if im correct.
So that was a big leap forward.
Been a fan of Greg for a couple years now.
The specific video by Greg regarding the 200 Gal tank is fictious. The amount of damage that video has done to the community is astronomical, he's been corrected by multiple historians and ignores it. He's often half decent at engineering otherwise, but in operational conclusions quite flawed. Specifically in this one, as is clearly shown in his own video, he incorrectly reads the flight manual and goes off the rails with conclusions based on it. The flight manual page he uses states the 200 gal metal ferry tank (it wasn't pressurized) "NONE or EMPTY." If it could feed fuel at altitude, there is no reason for that page to even exist. The truth is the 200 gal tank was a middle altitude ferry tank, the P-47 itself didn't even have the internal plumbing to receive a pressurized tank fuel flow until later in 1943 due to the efforts of Lt. Col. Cass Hough at VIII ATS to build a conversion kit and then get Republic to start adding them at the factory. Retrofitting them with B-7 and B-10 shackle kits for pressurized tanks took a long time, and bottom line a P-47 with the effective range to compete with the P-51 didn't exist in numbers until the D-25 post D-Day. The 200 Gal tank Greg claim's would've saved lives was actually tested on July 28 '43 by the 4th FG at Lt. Col. Hough's suggestion - tellingly they only filled it halfway to cover the initial climb portion. They weren't willing to fly at a medium altitude over hostile territory, and there was no way to get fuel out of the tank above 15-18k.
@@ME-xh7zp Ford Australia built a steel 200-gallon P-47 drop tank in the summer of 1943 and produced three thousand of them. It was designed in two days and put to immediate use.
@@georgeturner2374 And it was great in the Pacific where flow pressurization wasn't required to be effective.
@@ME-xh7zp A 200 gallon-per-hour submersible pump would've cost about $1.50 in 1943 dollars. If the problem existed, it was because nobody wanted it solved.
@@georgeturner2374 No, it's far more complex than that. The aircraft needed plumbing added just to receive pressurized fuel. It was an intensive process involving taking the wings apart and running it off the vacuum system. The B-7 shackle starts getting refitted on Bolts in Sep. '43. After feverish work by all involved. They don't come factory standard until the D-16. Combat tanks were given top priority by the USAAF as early as Feb. '42 fysa. Go read for yourself about Lt. Col. Cass Hough and VIII ATS. Or better yet just the flight manual for the P-47, you'll see within five minutes Greg isn't even using the right page for the 200 Gal ferry tank data. In his own video, he's using the page for the empty ferry tank (when it's already fed all the fuel at a lower altitude) and a column that clearly states two blocks to the left it's data is only to be used below 12k.
Looking back 80 years, it is easy to forget the rate at which development was taking place and that all but the earliest P51 inherited an engine design with years of development in the Hurricane and Spitfire. Similarly the P51 was developed in 1940 but the P51D that was so successful first appeared in mid-1944 and had been designed specifically for long-range bomber support - the role that created the legend.
One thing which muddies the impact of the P-51 was the cover it gave to removing the ban on drop tanks for fighters. The Aircorp bomber Generals had banned drop tanks on fighters. They held the position that bombers could defend themselves, without escorts. This position was politically hard to back down from. The "extended range" P-51 gave them the excuse to remove the ban, magically allowing fighters to be escorted all the way to the target, using the formerly forbidden drop tanks. Drop tanks also allowed P-51s and P-47 to raise hell on sweeps deeper into occupied Europe. Countless US losses were the result of the droptank ban, kept in place to cover the butts of Bomber Generals at great cost to bomber crews.
I think that it is important to remember that when discussing the P-51, it did not hold any game changing advantages over its international contemporaries, not even in the crucial area of its range. In fact, by the late war period (1944-1945) it was more or less equal to most of the opponents it faced in terms of speed, manueverability, and firepower. The US critically didn't arm its fighters with 20mm canon because 1) the .50 cal Brownings were lighter and still got the job done, and 2) they carried more .50 cal ammo than what 20mm armed fighters of the time could carry. Noteably, the only US fighter in the ETO that did carry a 20mm canon was the P-38, and the amount of ammo it carried for that one gun was comparable to what other European fighters were carrying per 20mm in their fighters - between 250-300 rounds of ammo per gun. Given that most fighters didn't have a separate button for separate guns unless they were carrying a mix of machine guns and canon, this meant that in the case of aircraft like the Typhoon, you had precious few rounds to use overall before your guns ran dry and you had to make every shot count, whereas aircraft that had a mix of machine guns and canon or ones that carried only machine guns had a greater margin of error with firing in long bursts. This isnt to say that pilots were just spraying and praying, but a strictly machine gun armed aircraft was generally a better option for newer pilots as it gave them a greater amount of ammo to use while they got better at firing under g loads where their ballistic drop was dramatically different than what they'd seen in training. With the P-51, we also see this sort of reversion in armament quantity in the early models from the direction we had been going during the pre war years. When it became clear that the US would likely get drug into another European conflict, a decision was made to increase the amount of firepower a single fighter could carry. This resulted in the P-47 with its 8 .50 cal machine guns and the P-38 with its 4 .50 cal guns and its single 20mm canon. But after the US was drug into the war, the early models of the P-51 only carried 4 .50's which was comparable to what some older US fighters were carrying overseas like some models of the P-40. It worked, but it was recognized that additional firepower was needed in order to reduce time on target to achieve a kill, so 2 more .50's were added to later models of the P-51 to strike a balance between firepower vs weight. Given that the P-51's high altitude manueverability was roughly equal to and in some cases, superior to the Luftwaffe fighters it faced, I think that the addition of 20mm canon with their additional weight would have been detrimental to its performance at high altitude. When you lower the combat altitude to below 10,000 ft, that performance margin gets even narrower even to the point where most versions of the FW-190 were equal to or faster than the P-51 down low in terms of straight line speed, and even the BF-109 had low altitude manuevering advantages over the P-51. The context of the P-51's success should always be mentioned within the picture of the overwhelming allied air superiority that created the environment in which it operated that allowed it to enjoy the success that it did. Without it, I think the story of the P-51 would have wound up being closer to that of the P-47, where it would have eventually have been replaced with something slightly better suited to the role it was originally assigned.
The 20mm were good for shooting down bombers & transports, but in a dogfight, with split seconds to line up a fast moving & evasive target, the advantage goes to the plane with the higher rate of fire, and 6 or 8 .50 Brownings at convergence were absolutely deadly.
@@jagtone to a certain extent that holds true. using 20mm in a dogfight back then was different. the pilot had to contend with different ballistic drop from the different guns, however, a good pilot (and by the late war period the allies had a lot of good pilots) was able to use them effectively. I wont say it was rare to fire all the guns at the same time, but I dont think it was the standard operating practice in aircraft armed with both machine guns and canon. the advantage of the 20mm in a dogfight was that if you hit with the 20mm, you caused dramatically more damage to a fighter with fewer 20mm shells than you did with the same number of rounds from machine guns. the vast majority of fighters in ww2 only carried cockpit armor that could stop a few .50 cal rounds coming from behind the pilot. if a 20mm exploded anywhere near the wing root of a fighter, that shrapnel usually went into the cockpit and severely wounded the pilot. 20mm was also more effective against radials, again due to its explosive filler allowing it to do more damage with fewer rounds. a good pilot who knew his ballistic drop could be very effective in a dogfight with 20mm. it wasn't like he needed to pull any more lead than he normally did, the difference at the convergence range was just a matter of a few feet more of extra lead and that doesn't make that big of a difference in terms of time on target prior to firing in a dogfight. we even see this now in sims like DCS World and IL-2. the same tactics and use of 20mm that were used in ww2 still apply in multiplayer video games because at the end of the day, the same problems and solutions exist in the virtual world that existed in real life when you introduce the human element to it.
Just to clarify: The other [heavy] US [night] fighter that was [also] armed with 20mm ordnance [in the ETO] was Northrop's P-61 Black Widow, employed intermittingly, such as on ground strike missions during the Battle of the Bulge.
@@SharkHustler do you have any sources to support that claim? I’ve only ever been aware of the black widow operating in the pacific which is why I didn’t include it in my original post
@@phillyfanist Wikipedia's one source.
My understanding is that the 109 is generally referred to as the BF109 rather than the ME109, I remember hearing something about this being to design being finalized under a different company or something of the sort - would love to hear more details on that.
You're right. Messerschmitt was the chief designer but it was built by the 'Bayerische Flugzeugwerke' company in which he had a share. Messerschmitt basically took over this company in 1938. So yes, the 109 and 110 should have the prefix "BF" but most Allied pilots recorded them as "ME" in the same way that the ME 262 carries that later prefix. I tend to use both terms depending on how I'm feeling and if I remember.
@@CalibanRising True. The Bf109 and Bf110 nomenclatures were the correct ones. But after these planes' introduction, Messerschmitt became head of the factory (or bought it, I can't remember) and thus his own initials were allowed to be put on the nomenclatures of future aircraft designs, so the Me163 and Me262 bear his name :) But I am sure you know far more about this than I do.
they've been referred to as BOTH the Bf109 and Me109 in German documents. Sometimes both in the same document.
@@SoloRenegade indeed, not only Military Aviation History made a vídeo, he also showed the document
@@CalibanRising WWII was won on the Eastern Front where the Russians faced 10 German soldiers for every one soldier the Allies encountered. The Mustang was a great airplane, but by the time it arrived the Germans had been beaten by the Red Army so it's deployment was moot at best.
For those of you that like to say that the spitfire would outduel the mustang 1on 1 if the 2 fighters were ever adversaries the mustangs would use the same zoom and boom tactics the hellcats and Corsairs used in the pacific against the more maneuverable zero fighters, also the p47 ‘s in Europe used these same type of tactics against the Me109 and FW 190 with great success, so despite the advantages the spitfire would have over the mustang in a dogfighting role if they ever met in battle the mustang wouldn’t have fought the spitfire in a turning or climbing fight
My Grandad "You sit in a Mustang...You put on a Spitfire like a well tailored suit...it's part of you"
Interesting analysis and historical info. I always thought the Mustang is great, but over-hyped. Not sure about the P-47 Vs 51 ground speed though. Using TAS on one and IAS on the other?
The P-51 was no super weapon, but its strengths near-perfectly converged with with the mission requirements and doctrine. Compare to the P-38 over the Pacific. Also, it was reportedly easy (relatively) to fly and fight in. I think that counts for a lot when compared to late model 109s and very few "experten" to fly them
It's movie-star good looks didn't exactly hurt the hype either.
P-38 is Boss ☝️
Those you should ask are far and few between. The bomber crews from WW2 is who you should be asking. Our opinion, setting behind a computer safe and sound from any potential danger, has little significants other than personal opinion from statistics you present.
Only the p-51 could at high altitude operate at a mach number that matched the fw-190. Above certain altitudes the 38’s and the 47’s weren’t competitive
Just thought I'd throw this out there. My understanding is that the P-51 Mustang cost 51,000 US as opposed to the 87,000 US that the P-47 Thunderbolt cost.
It was no doubt a deadly dogfighter in an experienced pilots' hands but it's awesome range potential that's what really broke Luftwaffe fighter capabilities.
Yeah no. The range had nothing to do with it...
@@motomime6148 you oughta learn why range was everything
@@motomime6148 so a P51 could still dogfight like hell after a P47 or P38 had already reached fuel Bingo and still go all the way home.
You still don't get it huh? The overall strategy changed from escort to search and destroy. Meaning German Fighter command. But it helped that a P51 would stall later than a 109 as well as turn inside a 109 ever so slightly.
@@paxwallace8324 lol time to hit up Gregs airplanes and automobiles to see why your generalized statement are just wrong.
What has to be taken into account, but is a very difficult task to do, the pilots that the British were initially engaging with from 1939 to 1943, the Luftwaffe pilots were way more experienced than the pilots flying from 1943 to 1945. Earlier pilots for the Luftwaffe were experienced from their experiences in Spain and in the conquest of Europe prior to the Battle of Britain.
Edit: If the performance figures for the Packard P-51D (1400hp) are compared with the Griffon engined Spitfire (2020hp) at medium and high altitudes, the Spitfire on paper is faster and can fly higher. Hence the high kill rate for the Mk15 Spitfires from 1944 onwards. The P-51D was actually 7-8mph slower than the P-51C. Pilots who flew the P-47 and the P-51 said the P-47 was a better handling aircraft in the air. It can be seen from above that the P-47 was similar in design to the Spitfire with it's elliptical wings and emphenage. The Spitfire was designed as an outright interceptor, but the P-51's roll was mid level bomber escort at the request of the 8th Airforce. Initially the P-51A-C only had 4x .50cal, played with problems due to their orientation inside the wing. The P-51D received 6x .50's with the P-51D. By this time the Spitfire had 4x 20mm canon. The only real advantage the P-51 had over the Spitfire was range. Due to the fuselage fuel tank that could be installed after the Merlin was fitted, and a stronger airframe to support large drop tanks - at loss of manoeuvrability. Pilots learned to switch the fuel feed around to best prepare themselves for when actual combat occurred and they could drop the wing tanks.
North American stopped producing the P51 in 1945, with the H & K variants. Australia produced the most formidable version. The CAC-18, up until 1949. Initially 40 were fitted with the Packard Merlin V-1650-7 now rated at 1670hp, then CAC fitted the Merlin 66/70 engines, rated for medium-high altitudes and a similar output 450+. The Spitfire was manufactured until 1948, in operation with the Irish Air Corps until 1961.
The P-51, ceased production in 1945, in the US and was retired in 1957, 1959 in Australia. Countries like the Dominican Republic continued with the P-51 much longer, but it was economics that kept it going in minnow Airforces. By all accounts the Spitfire was a better fighter/interceptor, the Mustang a better Escort/fighter. But the P-51D was by no means the fighter that won the war. That was shared by the Hurricane and Spitfire when Germany received their first airborne defeat in the Battle of Britain. Their first land defeat in Tobruk, North Africa, by the Australians. 👍🇦🇺
saw a P-51 flying one morning along Lake Michigan, it just knifes through the air, most planes chug along and the P-51 cuts through
One thing I’ve always been curious about is the veracity of Axis air victory claims. When talking about leading aces from the Commonwealth, UK, and USA, there’s almost always mention of a probable and/or disputed claim. Not that I would claim to be a leading authority or researcher, but I don’t recall seeing much doubt ever leveled at Axis pilots. Germany wasn’t shy about hyping their heroes and were perfectly willing to gloss over and/or embellish the story.
And I’m not sure if I could ever be convinced that Japanese aerial victory tallies were valid. For Japan as a whole, some of their war time reports were essentially fairytales. It doesn’t take much effort to disprove that the IJN didn’t sink every American aircraft carrier at Midway, but verifying individual fighter pilot claims is much harder (even when actual records might be available after the war). The Imperial Japanese military never seemed interested in reevaluating claims of success in a downward direction.
Look at the wartime record of Erich Hartman (credited with 352 aircraft shot down, over 1400 missions, about 3.97 missions/kill). Compare this with Francis Gabreski (credited with 28 aircraft shot down, 166 missions, 5.92 missions/kill). Same with Gunther Rall, Josef 'Pips' Priller, etc. German pilots usually flew till they died, often flying hundreds of missions. Most of the highest scoring German aces were in the East, where greater numbers of Allied aircraft were flown. Allied aces that survived either moved into command or became instructors to teach the new guys how to survive, producing more quality pilots. A few dozen aces shooting down large numbers of Allied aircraft did not cancel out thousands of Allied pilots shooting down several to many planes each.
@@cjackmond
The other thing about high scoring German pilots that doesn't get mentioned much. They got shot down too. Hartmann I think 9 times. In fact the majority of fighter pilots that got shot down as I understand is that most of the victims never saw their executioners.
There's quite a lot of written material available nowadays that provides much information on the veracity of pilots' air claims. For instance, Christopher Shores (along with various co-authors) has completely covered the air war in the Mediterranean theater on a day-by-day basis. His books prove that overclaiming by pilots of both sides was remarkably prevalent and frequently astonishingly bad.
Two examples: on the 30th of July, 1943, the US 325th Fighter Group claimed 21 Bf109s shot down over Sardinia while losing two P-40s. The Germans, of III/JG 77, lost just six 109s, and claimed five P-40s. On another occasion, on February 9th, 1943, over Tunisia, Luftwaffe pilot Erich Rudorffer, claimed six P-40s and two P-38s destroyed, whereas it appears that the Allies lost at most one fighter, a P-40, shot down by enemy aircraft, and even that resulted in just a forced landing.
I've read a great deal about aerial combat, and, as a result, I believe I can make some generalizations about the accuracy of pilot claims:
RAF pilot claims in western Europe were very bad in the first few years of the war, but steadily improved from roughly 1943 onward, so that by 1945, they were extremely accurate.
8th Air Force pilot claims were usually fairly good, which is in contrast to the frequently wild claims by US pilots in the Mediterranean theater and much better than the claims by US pilots against the Japanese. Why there's such a difference, I don't know.
German pilots: In general, there was much serious overclaiming, but it's worth noting that even among their very high scoring pilots, some were remarkably accurate. The #1 man on the list, Erich Hartmann, however, was allegedly not one of these. A book that examines the claims of top German aces who fought over Hungary in 1944-45 has concluded that of the 34 claims that Hartmann made during this period, it's likely that as many as 27 of them are invalid. This is in sharp contrast to the top German of WW1, Manfred Von Richthofen, who claimed 80, of which about 75 were good.
Japanese, Soviet, and Italian: usually highly inaccurate claiming. The worst of the six air forces mentioned.
@@ramonzzzz I will admit it is a rough average, but many times about 3 times as many claims as kills is common, and it is not necessarily because the pilots are liars, it is because you are in a situation where you to not get the leisure of observing the aircraft you may or may not have shot down for long before somebody might come along and shoot you down. I would never take at face value the estimations of over-adrenalized men in combat. As a side note, Josef 'Pips' Priller is probably the ace with the most meticulous notes on his kills, he is the only person with just over 100 kills all in the Western theatre.
I've not researched but from my RAF experience in the late '40s all returning pilots would have been thoroughly debriefed for intelligence after each sortie. Any encounter would have interrogated: Where, time, altitude (self and enemy),speed, aircraft type, markings, unusual features, attack/defence tactics, if engaged notes were taken of ammunition expended, length of burst, range this would have been assessed with gun camera footage (fitted to all fighters from early war) and observations of others.
Proportionately, the Spitfires faced a more selectively trained and experienced group of Luftwaffe pilots in the first half of the war. By the time late 1944 and early 45 come around, many (most) of those pilots are dead. And as we know from fights like Bodenplatte, their replacements were comparatively inexperienced and had had less time for training. The quality of pilot that a Mustang would have faced in (say) early 1945 was nothing like as good as an FW190 pilot shooting down MkVs in 1942.
Yep 👍🏼
Apparently Supermarine and the RAF bought into the “hype.” They sought to find a replacement for the Spitfire more along the lines of the P-51. The Supermarine Spiteful was to incorporate a laminar flow wing like the Mustang, instead of the iconic elliptical wing of the Spitfire. So there’s that.
I'm guessing you mean with the development of the Hawker Tempest, which incorporated a laminar wing.
Years ago I saw an interview with a Luftwaffe pilot. He said the day he saw the P-51 over Berlin he knew the war was over. Talk and argue about the performance of aircraft all you want. It was the fact the Allies could engage everywhere that made the difference.
Overall combined combinations of tactics that defeated them.They all played a roll .
Very average plane until it got the British engine
It was a British design, the Americans improved it by refining the quality in production. Americans had perfected the assembly line and made the tolerances consistent. The British were still making the Merlin by hand.
useless provocation
Yeah, the war is over.
@@curtisbryce5096 unfortunately you are wrong, the merlin was engineered for mass production before Packard was given the contract for license production. Engineers from Ford in the UK were responsible and the Trafford park plant in Manchester built over 25000 as well as shadow factories in Crewe and Glasgow. See “Not much of an Engineer” by Stanley Hooker for the circumstances for this.
I've never understood the tendency to minimize the impact of the P-51. Post-war American high command claimed the P-47 broke the back of the Luftwaffe, but I think that reflected their Anglophobia and resentment that the Mustang was created at the behest of of the RAF with little imput from the USAAF. General "Hap" Arnold, who was as responsible as anyone for delaying the Mustangs implementation, mentioned the P-51 once in his autobiography.
Phil, Thank you so much for addressing this topic. I just got through reading the new book "Wings of War" by the White's. It is an interesting read and has some good new information but definitely glamorizes the p-51 as the war winning aircraft that we would have lost the war if it hadn't come along. Now I don't fault anyone for being a fanboy of the P-51, I even put myself into that category. I only have one problem - the prospective gained by reading "Thunderbolt" by Robert S. Johnson approximately 60 years ago. I became a fanboy of the p-47 also. Your statement about the p-51, "It was a good aircraft but most of us do not view its contribution in the right context" is spot on.
I believe it is telling that Maj Gen Bill Kepner, commander of the 8th Fighter Command wrote in May 1944, "If it can be said that the p-38s struck the Luftwaffe in its vitals and the p-51s are giving it the coup de grace, it was the Thunderbolt that broke its back."
The only thing that the White's could say about the Thunderbolt in "Wings of War" was it was sluggish and couldn't climb. They completely ignore that the p-47 above 15,000 ft came into its own. At 20k to 30k it would outperform both the Bf-109 and the FW-190. They also ignore the improvements in performance that occurred when the paddle bladed prop and water injection was added in the later D models of the p-47.
The White's also spout the old party line that the p-47 just lacked the range to be useful. I stumbled onto Greg's You Tube channel and watched his 6 part presentation on the p-47 and they were eye-opening. His proposition that the p-47 had the capacity to accompany the bombers all the way on the second Schweinfurt raid but the high command failed to use that capability was most enlightening. I had noted Hap Arnold's distain for drop tanks from other reading and I suspect that this is a primary reason for the failure of the 8th to utilize properly the tools that they had on hand with the p-47 as it was. From my reading, there were cases where 8th fighter command leaders after getting no adequate response from the higher ups for obtaining drop tanks for the p-47 took matters into their own hands and had them manufactured locally by the Brits.
Greg does a good job in pointing out that the propaganda on the p-51 exaggerating its capabilities while denigrating the capabilities of the p-47 maybe a result of a cover up by Arnold and others who were facing such harsh criticism for the blood bath the unescorted bombers encountered. The line was "don't blame us, our tools were not up to snuff, but thank God we were intelligent enough to come up with the Uber-fighter that won the war - the P-51".
The White's book "Wings of War" perpetuates what I am beginning to think of as the p-51 myth. Don't get me wrong, the p-51 is a great aircraft, just talk to the pilots who flew it. But also talk to the pilots who flew the p-47 before coming to a conclusion.
I must also admit that in my reading I am becoming uncomfortable about some issues with Arnold. I have picked up some comments from combat pilots that do not put him in a favorable light. I encountered comments from the fighter squadron that carried out the raid on Yamamoto. Arnold had visited them when they were still flying P-39s and he chastised them for not scoring more kills over their A6M Zero rivals. Arnold came off being very Herman Goering like in his criticism of the pilots aggressiveness and courage. But at least Arnold stop short of ordering one member of the squadron shot for the units cowardness. I think I picked up that jewel in "Attack on Yamamoto" by Carroll V. Glines. I have set it out to read again just to make sure.
Fanboy myths do not help us understand the honest impact and contribution of the p-51. I agree it shortened the war - but the allies would still have won it without the p-51 but at a greater cost.
Keep up the good work.
So the Spitfire makes the biggest impact by far. It was at the forefront from the beginning to the end of the war, constantly being upgraded and improved to be able to compete at the highest level.
Poor Hurricanes get no respect. I love the Spitfire, but different planes had different strengths, and one thing the Spitfire didn't do as well as the Jugs and Mustangs was take the fight to the enemy. Just didn't have the range.
@Zach Cochran that's what most think. But by the mid war aircraft like the Spitfire MkVIII had pretty good range and could penetrate deep into enemy territory, which it did. Also Spitfire PR MKXI had a 2000 mile range. The Hurricane was a great fighter up to and during the Battle of Britain, but after that it couldn't be developed much more as a first rate fighter. It was very adaptable for ground attack use and ended up having extreme firepower.
@@elzarchoSpitfires flew Photo recon over Germany both with the RAF & USAAF and it a myth that it did not take the fight to the Enemy what were Spitfire raids over France in 1941 doing, yes it was primary a defensive fighter but by the time the Mk 5s come out it was used on offensive raids with the Mk 9's and 14's been 2 of best fighter marks of the war
and it was only when the Mustang D's USAAF/ 3's for the RAF come on the scene was it really capable of flying to Germany
and lets get one thing clear the Hurricane only shoot down more German planes in the B of B because there were twice the number of them
Really, to tell you the truth, sounds like your bias is causing you to misinterpret what really happened. It is clear that the thunderbolt were The real kill blow to the Nazi Air Force. They went farther then the Spitfire, and before the P 51 Mustang arrived, they killed off the best Nazi fighter pilots. This is not in dispute.
Spitfire, a beautiful plane and maybe the most maneuverable and all that stuff but it really doesn’t matter that much when most attacks are sneak attack or flak attack.
In that case the advantage goes to the most survivable aircraft, that is the P47
@@julianneale6128 It could be argued that the Hurricane was the first true tank buster in the desert.
Observation, the 9th AF were operating P38 in 3 FG of P-38s one never converting to P-51 the other two converting in late March and mid April, 1945.
Goring said it best...." When I saw P-51's over Berlin, I knew the war was lost ..." !
JG26 was based near the French coast. The P51 was doing more work over Germany. It also flew from Africa and Italy.
By the time the P-51 showed up in numbers, the US had more veteran pilots than the Germans. We would send our aces back home to train other pilots.
Where the P-51 shined was prior to June of 44 because looking at all of the fighters of the war, axis or allies, the P-51 had the best combination of overall capability and range. The Spit was arguably a better fighter but it truly lacked range. The Jug was.... well..... a Jug, The Jug was very survivable and excellent in a dive or zoom climb because of its mass but certainly could not turn and climb as well as many contemporaries. If a Jug got slow it got dead. Once we had airfields in mainland Europe (after June of 44) and have access to forward air bases the types with shorter range was much less of an issue as they were a lot closer to the fighting front.
Even trying to say which fighter was the best is kind of a fools errand because the answer changes when you have to look at overall mission of the type, how it was used, and most importantly where its strengths were which makes fair comparison nearly impossible. What you can say statistically is there are good and bad types, but comparing good ones is just difficult because its always comparing apples to oranges. Even kill counts is not a good measure because some types were used for missions that would specifically result in a higher kill count (ex: marauding targets of opportunity) vs flying escort missions where your goal is more aligned to fending off fighters to keep them off the bombers than attaining victories thus you really must look at the mission and use of the type to reach useful conclusions about its effectiveness.
One measure I would use to determine "the best allied fighter" would be to ask "which types stayed in service the longest after the war (into the jet age) and here the clear victor would be the F4u Corsair, but sadly they were not used in Europe by the 8th Air Force since they were a Navy fighter. It would have been an interesting alternate history if the 8th had actually used Corsairs to see how they would have fared against the Luftwaffe, I would speculate they would have have held a position somewhere between a Jug and Mustang since its also pretty long ranged, but a better fighter than a Jug and more durable than a Mustang. This of course assumes we are solely looking at piston engine types because clearly P-80s and Meteors are technically WWII aircraft and while they did not see much service in that War they did have significant post war careers as 1st Generation jets.
Interestingly, during the planning stage for the Operation Overlord when the tried to evaluate the strenght of Luftwaffe there was quite of a dispute between US and British. According to US pilot's victory claims Luftwaffe would not exist any more, so at the end they took half of fighter and a third of bomber claims as the basis for the estimate.
One controversial story is that 8th USAF commanders exaggerated the capability of the P-51 over the P-47 for long range bomber escort missions over Europe. This was to excuse heavy B-17 bomber losses without escorting fighters. When they actually could have used P-47s on long range missions. When Merlin Mustangs became available they were used for long range missions. Another factor to be considered is the quality of German pilots being shot down. Late war German pilots were of much lower quality with heavy combat losses. The Germans had to commit poorly trained pilots to fight US bombers. And Germans had less fuel to provide more effective training. The Japanese had the same problems. Allied airforce committed to huge aircrew training programs of adequate quality to sustain heavy loses while still growing in number, experience and quality. Quality of pilots being another important factor in winning the air war. Though some great German and Japanese pilots did survive the war.
I guess the impact of the P-51 was especially felt in the segments of raids that didn't have spitfires and thunderbolts defending the bombers.
For whatever reason, the P-47 is generally remembered today as a ground attack aircraft. It was good at that role but it also excelled as a normal fighter. Not many other fighters could dominate the Luftwaffe at 30,000 feet and also be an effective fighter bomber down low.
It was NOT an effective fighter down low.
@jack tattis No, but it was a very effective fighter up high where it was needed most in the bomber raids. The highest scoring American ace in the ETO, Gabreski, did it all flying a P-47. Plus, all 10 of the top scoring P-47 aces survived the war, which you can't say about any of the other fighters.
@@RolleiPollei Great up top and should have stayed there
Field Marshal Herman Goering - head of the Luftwaffe (German air arm) and one of the most-powerful men in the Third Reich - testified after the war at Nuremberg that when he saw U.S. heavy bombers over Berlin escorted by long-range P-51 Mustang fighters, he knew the war was lost. Goering was a former fighter pilot himself, an ace during the Great War, and he knew whereof he spoke. Other allied fighters influenced the war effort greatly, but none had the legs that the Mustang had.
Brigadier General Charles E. "Chuck" Yeager, one of the finest pilots of the 20th century, and famous as the man who officially broke the sound barrier, flew the P-51 in combat over Europe and became an "ace" in a day with a five-victory mission. He was also shot down and bailed out over France. He evaded capture with the help of the resistance and even fought for a while with the Maquis (partisans) in the mountains of France before being smuggled out to neutral Spain.
Escaped POWs were - by official policy at SHAEF - prohibited from going back into air combat over the ETO, the reason being that it was thought that if they got shot down again, they could betray resistance networks in France and elsewhere in occupied Europe. Yeager and another pilot challenged the rule, and won, so he finished the war in the cockpit of a P-51. Without challenging the rule, he would not have become an ace since his five-kill mission came after returning to his squadron.
Yeager said that only the Focke Wulf FW-190 could compare with the Mustang, out of the German piston-engine designs of the war.
Another of his feats at the controls of a P-51, Yeager had the distinction of downing an Me-262, which he intercepted as it was landing and at reduced power and altitude. That's the right tactic to take, since those early turbo-fan engines often flamed out if the throttle was opened too suddenly.
For all of his aerial accomplishments, Yeager and fellow P-51 pilots and colleagues like Bud Hoover considered their wartime flying to be the peak of their experiences as aviators.
As a kid building plastic models of WW2 aircraft, the North American P-51 and the Supermarine Spitfire were two of my favorites. I remember that the P-51 kit from Tamiya was a replica of Don Gentile's P-51B "Shangri-La".... cool stuff.
What most don’t know is that the P-51 was designed by a German. German-born and educated engineer Edgar Schmued. Schmued also did the F-86 and F-100 and many others.
Focusing on one particular German unit is likely to be more misleading than useful because units stationed in different places fought very different mixtures of Allied aircraft. Units close to the English Channel had opportunities to encounter spitfires, while units deeper in Europe had no or far less opportunity to encounter spitfires. (This is complicated by how units could be stationed in different places at different times, and large units could be spread out in different places..) When escort missions involved mixtures of thunderbolts and mustangs, it made sense to orient the thunderbolts toward the parts of the missions closer to England and the mustangs toward the parts of the missions farther away. Thus, German units in different places presumably encountered different mixtures of mustangs and thunderbolts, and units close enough to England to fight spitfires probably faced a considerably higher percentage of thunderbolts compared with mustangs than units deeper in Europe.
@CalibanRising - one analogy that I could offer to clash with the calcs offered by Greg to arrive at combat radius is as follows:
I know you get it but some may not quite understand the point so for the few
Imagine a 10 foot garden hose in a straight line representing 100 miles of escorted travel - laying on the ground.
Start at same point and Lay a 15 foot garden hose weaving from side to side over the 10 foot hose - terminating with the 10 foot hose.
The P-47 travels the 15 feet at cruise settings but only covers 10 feet of ground in the same time - analogous to the drain of fuel more that flying a straight line escort.. you discuss briefly but suggest that you compliment the discussion with additional facts.
1.) the P-47D was not assigned target escort deep into Germany - despite arrival of the 150gal flat tank and the ability to also carry a 110gal C/L . 305gal was simply too little internal fuel. The P-47M did so in April 1945 for a few missions - 15 months too late for Big Week.
2.) I don't have Frank Olynyk citations for ground victories, but for 8th AF, there is Only 8th AF Victory Credits Board June 1945. The 8th AF Ground Victory totals are P-51 (3199), P-47 (740), P-38 (161)
3.) The P-47D remained invaluable as a critical element of the Relay escort system that provided escort according to the range tables for Penetration and Withdrawal escort radius. Until summer 1944 there weren't enough Mustang equipped FGs.
4.) The 'bomber mafia' conspiracy theory to 'hold back the P-47 from its rightful place' (not your theory but popular with Greg) is just sad. Imagine Ira Eaker gleefully composing letter to kin of the losses that day? Recall that Eaker demanded, and got from Arnold, three P-38FG which actually were operational flying escort missions for 8th AF for brief time in 1942 before Eisenhower and Spaatz pried them away for Torch. He soldiered on despite the limitations of the replacement P-47s.
5.) The associated rant that combat tanks were held back is also silly. A point CAN be made that Materiel Command did not manage the spec, design, fabricate, test, retest, place production orders timely enough to Arnolds Fighter Conference priority 2-42 or Fairchild FAREP in summer 1942.
6.) Consider Kartveli as an equal root of the problem. Compared to Lockheed and NAA, Republic was six months to a year behind P-38 and P-51 capablities with wing pylon/fuel feed as well as increasing internal fuel. For the latter feature it took the P-47N in 1945 to match/exceed 1943 Mustang range capability.
Additional suggestions
The P-51 had 189/184gal (Wing Mains) plus full 85gal for usable 265gal.
The P-51 flight tested mpg at 25K, cruise speed 270mph with 2x110 externals - closer to 4-4.5mpg while carrying 110gal drop tanks. 5mpg with 75s.
The 8th AF never abandoned umbrella escort, but did alternate the bomber escort positions to include side and high positions of sections crossing each other to maintain high cruise while still maintaining relative position to the assigned escort box of bombers. The 'Essing' analogy remains through EOW for escort
Free Lance Sweeps were adopted for targets of opportunity untethered to bombers - other than planned along the same route - hopefully to catch LW formations as the took off and formed, or climbing or intercept. Many were successful - also for P-47s flying inbound Penetration sweeps.
Until the P-47D-25 entered combat ops, no penetrations even with sweeps, reached Brandenburg. The limit historically documented ad nauseum, was Brunswick.
While you and I can debate on several points, we can take off-line.
I enjoy your presntations even when disagreeing POV.
If Jg26 was near the channel, that would bias the data. The RAF was aligned with Montgomery's Army group. Plus the 9th air force was huge, so just looking at 8th AF stats will be misleading.
If you want to get a good sense of how the Luftwaffe was killed, I recommend "To win the winter sky". An incredibly detailed accounting of the air war during the battle of the bulge. The Luftwaffe through everything thing in, and was devistated.
One other point to keep in mind, between acquisition cost and fuel burn, the AAF could fly two Mustangs for the same cost as 1 Thunderbolt. Quantity has a quality all its own....
One very important factor you left out, unless it was in the 2 - 3 minutes I missed, was the cost of the aircraft. A P47 cost $83,000 and a P51 cost $51,000. That means for $8.3 million you could purchase 162 Mustangs vs. 100 Thunderbolts. A single Thunderbolt may or may not have been more effective than a single Mustang, but 162 Mustangs would probably have been a lot more effective than 100 Thunderbolts. In addition, the operating cost of the Mustang was much lower than that of the Thunderbolt, due to much lower fuel consumption, which means the US military would have had more money to spend on more Mustangs or other weapons.
Those kill numbers seem crazy. It's a good thing we had both the Spit and Pony on our side. Yikes.
Both are such beautiful birds. I can't wait to see them at Willow Run Airshow this year. Damn Rona shut us down last few years.
This presentation confirms the one great weakness of the P-51 Mustang, as long range bomber escort. It was not available sooner. Except for that, it was a very very good fighter and helped a lot during 1944-1945.
The second weakness, is that with all the fuel tanks filled up, it was very unstable and unsuited to air combat during the first hour or so if it's sortie, due to it being too tail heavy because of the rear fuel tank. Jettisoning the drop tanks won't fix this and may make it worse. This weakness was necessary to give the Mustang the range it needed. This weakness was a non factor because the Luftwaffe in the last 16 months of the war was generally not capable of attacking Allied aircraft so early in there missions. I know of no Mustangs shot down because they were forced to engage in aerial combat while being too tail have from the fuel in the rear tank.
Finally the Mustang became less effective after May 1944. For the same reason Joe Louis became less effective in later rounds, as statistics show he was not as able to land as many blows as the fight continued, as other fighters of his era. Largely because a lot of the time, by the eight round, his opponent was already knocked out.